5 ms·

You know I didn't use to understand libertarians, but after years of watching boundaries being overstepped again and again I think I see the appeal of burning i

You know I didn't use to understand libertarians, but after years of watching boundaries being overstepped again and again I think I see the appeal of burning it all down and living in a cabin in the woods. Like, in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms, what more do you fucking want? Security is beyond a laughable excuse for things like chat control. Power tripping elitists will never be happy until they have the entire population under 24/7 camera surveillance and can read every thought in our heads as it occurs. If you make crime impossible, you make free will impossible.

maxlin 11mo ago
The same reason there's only more regulations being piled on top of previous ones. Sadly only wars and similar catastrophes work as reset buttons for these things historically. A peace as long as the current one is somewhat of an untested ground
cmrdporcupine 11mo ago
I agree with your overall sentiment, except: "Like, in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms" Russia. Putin.
- YC666943749 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - idiotsecant 11mo ago
    What a surprise a 2 hour old throwaway post parroting barely coherent Russian propaganda.
  - phba 11mo ago
    This "joke" is neither funny nor original as it comes up on social media everytime someone mentions Russia as a threat to Europe. Oh, look at that. A fresh account just to make this comment. What a coincidence.
- moffkalast 11mo ago
  I'm talking about our society internally, not potential external attacks on it. It's reasonably high trust and crime is rare outside a few outlier cities. We could not be further from warranting these sort of fascist style crackdowns. Ironically yes we could be spending funding used for domestic surveillance and bureaucracy on buying more Himars.
- somenameforme 11mo ago
  The chances of Russia invading a NATO country are essentially zero simply because it would, almost certainly, lead to nuclear war. The idea that nukes wouldn't come out is contradicted both by decades of wargaming. In fact this is exactly what led to the end of the Cold War. At one time the US thought we could end the Cold War by waving a bigger stick. But Proud Prophet [1] was an extremely elaborate war game played out in the 80s that demonstrated that literally every single aggressive strategy, regardless of how innocuous, invariably spiraled rapidly towards nuclear war and the depopulation of the Northern Hemisphere. This led the US to sharply scale back rhetoric against the USSR, drop ideas of successfully fighting a nuclear war, and a sharp shift towards de-escalation and away from strong-arming. 7 years later the first McDonalds would open in the USSR. The next year, the USSR would collapse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
  - cmrdporcupine 11mo ago
    This has nothing to do with anything. Nobody said anything about nuclear war or formal invasion. Let's review. Russia shot down a civilian airliner, killing all 298 people onboard, mostly Dutch nationals. Russia performed a radioactive poisoning attack on British territory, contaminating British civilian areas and Russia also used a deadly nerve agent twice within a few months on British territory, including poisoning two non-Russian British nationals, killing one and injuring the other. And they actively fund far right and white supremacist organizations in western European countries and blatantly interfere in local politics, and also run active bot farms for the purpose of undermining social solidarity and democratic governance. Those are just a few things we know about. The threat from Russia is not external or invasive. It is internal and ongoing. The fact that they haven't nuked and won't nuke the entire western hemisphere is a bit of a strange bar to set.
    - somenameforme 11mo ago
      His comment said that "in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms." And in the past Europe dealt with never-ending wars which culminated in a war that left tens of millions dead. And even after that war, there was the never-ending threat of nuclear annihilation that was 100% justified as both sides lined up their nukes at one another and very nearly fired them. Nothing in your list is anywhere near the same scale. The only thing that would suffice is a fear that Russia invades a NATO country and effectively triggers WW3.
delusional 11mo ago
> in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms, what more do you fucking want? For people not to get killed, abused, and exploited? You don't sound like a "libertarian" you sound like an anarchist. You know who has a large part of the population under global 24/7 surveillance right now? Google, Facebook, Microsoft.
clhodapp 11mo ago
The libertarians that want to live in the woods have a point. The problem is the libertarians that want to burn it all down and build a corpo-state.
SilverElfin 11mo ago
It’s important to defend libertarian values even when things are good. Small violations of civil rights have a tendency to stick around and snowball into something worse.
- moffkalast 11mo ago
  The katamari will grow until morale improves.
M95D 11mo ago
> I think I see the appeal of burning it all down and living in a cabin in the woods. AFAIK, you're not allowed to live in a cabin in the woods in Europe.
- drewbug 11mo ago
  Except in Finland :)
  - Itoldmyselfso 11mo ago
    Unfortunately summer cottage can't be your primary residence in Finland either
capr 11mo ago
try it, like these people https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7iJDMU43iUk https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7iJDMU43iUk
Nifty3929 11mo ago
"... the appeal of burning it all down and living in a cabin in the woods." I hope that's not what you think libertarianism is about. I'm sure there are libertarians who DO feel that way, but it's not a core tenet to personally isolate and live off the land. Libertarianism sees not left vs right, but instead the people against the government. Libertarians focus on personal liberty and solving problems together, voluntarily, as individuals cooperating. A libertarian would say, for example, that if I think a bridge should be built, then I should either build it myself or convince other people to help me out voluntarily - but not use government to force people to help (via taxes, etc). Libertarians are against force/coercion, and see government as the ultimate expression of force. There are some loony libertarians, as there are of any political party, but most of us have pretty ordinary and mainstream beliefs and priorities.
- rickydroll 11mo ago
  Libertarians reject governmental force but provide no barriers to corporate force. There are innumerable documented examples of corporate force having greater control over the population than a government. These examples are not just historical but also include the time we are currently living in.
  - Nifty3929 11mo ago
    I don't think this is true of libertarianism. Libertarians reject use of force, except to prevent other use of force. I.e. I can use force to stop someone else from using force on me (or others). Corporations are not exempt from this. A libertarian would support using force to stop a corporation from using force to coerce people to do something. But Libertarians reject a premise that a corporation is required to serve you. You can opt-out and the corporation should leave you alone. But you are not entitled to service or employment from that corporation. Your rights cannot depend on the performance of another. I have a right to produce or purchase my own food, but I do not have an right/entitlement to food that I have not purchased or produced.
    - rickydroll 11mo ago

maxlin 11mo ago

The same reason there's only more regulations being piled on top of previous ones. Sadly only wars and similar catastrophes work as reset buttons for these things historically. A peace as long as the current one is somewhat of an untested ground

cmrdporcupine 11mo ago

I agree with your overall sentiment, except: "Like, in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms" Russia. Putin.

YC666943749 11mo ago
[flagged]
- idiotsecant 11mo ago
  What a surprise a 2 hour old throwaway post parroting barely coherent Russian propaganda.
- phba 11mo ago
  This "joke" is neither funny nor original as it comes up on social media everytime someone mentions Russia as a threat to Europe. Oh, look at that. A fresh account just to make this comment. What a coincidence.
moffkalast 11mo ago
I'm talking about our society internally, not potential external attacks on it. It's reasonably high trust and crime is rare outside a few outlier cities. We could not be further from warranting these sort of fascist style crackdowns. Ironically yes we could be spending funding used for domestic surveillance and bureaucracy on buying more Himars.
somenameforme 11mo ago
The chances of Russia invading a NATO country are essentially zero simply because it would, almost certainly, lead to nuclear war. The idea that nukes wouldn't come out is contradicted both by decades of wargaming. In fact this is exactly what led to the end of the Cold War. At one time the US thought we could end the Cold War by waving a bigger stick. But Proud Prophet [1] was an extremely elaborate war game played out in the 80s that demonstrated that literally every single aggressive strategy, regardless of how innocuous, invariably spiraled rapidly towards nuclear war and the depopulation of the Northern Hemisphere. This led the US to sharply scale back rhetoric against the USSR, drop ideas of successfully fighting a nuclear war, and a sharp shift towards de-escalation and away from strong-arming. 7 years later the first McDonalds would open in the USSR. The next year, the USSR would collapse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
- cmrdporcupine 11mo ago
  This has nothing to do with anything. Nobody said anything about nuclear war or formal invasion. Let's review. Russia shot down a civilian airliner, killing all 298 people onboard, mostly Dutch nationals. Russia performed a radioactive poisoning attack on British territory, contaminating British civilian areas and Russia also used a deadly nerve agent twice within a few months on British territory, including poisoning two non-Russian British nationals, killing one and injuring the other. And they actively fund far right and white supremacist organizations in western European countries and blatantly interfere in local politics, and also run active bot farms for the purpose of undermining social solidarity and democratic governance. Those are just a few things we know about. The threat from Russia is not external or invasive. It is internal and ongoing. The fact that they haven't nuked and won't nuke the entire western hemisphere is a bit of a strange bar to set.
  - somenameforme 11mo ago
    His comment said that "in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms." And in the past Europe dealt with never-ending wars which culminated in a war that left tens of millions dead. And even after that war, there was the never-ending threat of nuclear annihilation that was 100% justified as both sides lined up their nukes at one another and very nearly fired them. Nothing in your list is anywhere near the same scale. The only thing that would suffice is a fear that Russia invades a NATO country and effectively triggers WW3.

delusional 11mo ago

> in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms, what more do you fucking want? For people not to get killed, abused, and exploited? You don't sound like a "libertarian" you sound like an anarchist. You know who has a large part of the population under global 24/7 surveillance right now? Google, Facebook, Microsoft.

clhodapp 11mo ago

The libertarians that want to live in the woods have a point. The problem is the libertarians that want to burn it all down and build a corpo-state.

SilverElfin 11mo ago

It’s important to defend libertarian values even when things are good. Small violations of civil rights have a tendency to stick around and snowball into something worse.

moffkalast 11mo ago
The katamari will grow until morale improves.

M95D 11mo ago

> I think I see the appeal of burning it all down and living in a cabin in the woods. AFAIK, you're not allowed to live in a cabin in the woods in Europe.

drewbug 11mo ago
Except in Finland :)
- Itoldmyselfso 11mo ago
  Unfortunately summer cottage can't be your primary residence in Finland either

capr 11mo ago

try it, like these people https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7iJDMU43iUk https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7iJDMU43iUk

Nifty3929 11mo ago

"... the appeal of burning it all down and living in a cabin in the woods." I hope that's not what you think libertarianism is about. I'm sure there are libertarians who DO feel that way, but it's not a core tenet to personally isolate and live off the land. Libertarianism sees not left vs right, but instead the people against the government. Libertarians focus on personal liberty and solving problems together, voluntarily, as individuals cooperating. A libertarian would say, for example, that if I think a bridge should be built, then I should either build it myself or convince other people to help me out voluntarily - but not use government to force people to help (via taxes, etc). Libertarians are against force/coercion, and see government as the ultimate expression of force. There are some loony libertarians, as there are of any political party, but most of us have pretty ordinary and mainstream beliefs and priorities.

rickydroll 11mo ago
Libertarians reject governmental force but provide no barriers to corporate force. There are innumerable documented examples of corporate force having greater control over the population than a government. These examples are not just historical but also include the time we are currently living in.
- Nifty3929 11mo ago
  I don't think this is true of libertarianism. Libertarians reject use of force, except to prevent other use of force. I.e. I can use force to stop someone else from using force on me (or others). Corporations are not exempt from this. A libertarian would support using force to stop a corporation from using force to coerce people to do something. But Libertarians reject a premise that a corporation is required to serve you. You can opt-out and the corporation should leave you alone. But you are not entitled to service or employment from that corporation. Your rights cannot depend on the performance of another. I have a right to produce or purchase my own food, but I do not have an right/entitlement to food that I have not purchased or produced.
  - rickydroll 11mo ago